President Bush waited until Saturday to veto the ban on waterboarding, hoping to diminish press and congressional attention. He had nothing to fear. Both democrats and republicans have already guaranteed that Bush will not be held accountable for the torture program. After effectively decriminalizing torture, the objections heard from Democrats should be met with a healthy degree of scorn.
Now that he is certain not to face any criminal investigation by either the Justice Department, click here, or any congressional investigation, here, Bush is free to treat the matter as simply one of presidential tastes. Indeed, as noted in an earlier column, waterboarding techniques have become the subject of almost casual discussion by Bush officials.
In his veto statement, Bush felt so comfortable that torture has been decriminalized that he openly stated his desire to use it when needed: “The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror . . . So today I vetoed it. This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe.”
Of course, before Bush, we had long ago abandoned such practices when we criminalized torture. However, such practices are back in vogue in the United States. In the meantime, the Attorney General continues to apply Mukasey’s paradox, here.
What is most curious is the response of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who insisted that “We will not stop until [the ban] becomes law.” The fact is that waterboarding was already criminal. It was long defined as a war crime. However, Democrats have struggled to pretend that there is some ambiguity in the status of waterboarding to excuse their own failure to act. Feinstein is responsible for saving Mukasey’s confirmation over his refusal to recognize that waterboarding is torture — guaranteeing that neither he nor Bush would be forced to deal with the question. Click here
For the full story, click here
Maybe Sen. Feinstein should have volunteered for the waterboarding test herself before saving Mukasey’s confirmation, but of course that would have required courage, which so far, the Democrats have displayed an alarming LACK of. Now I’m sadly wondering what other forms of torture our “esteemed” President will give the green light to in order to “keep America safe.” The rack perhaps? At this point, that wouldn’t surprise me at all.
This is a misquote. Here’s what Bush really said: The bill congress sent me would take away one of Al Quaedas’ most valuable recruiting tools in the war on terror. This is no time to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keepin’ fine Americans like Dick and me safe from the legal actions we deserve.
So what
Previously posted – from my ‘Greatest Hits’ Album…
http://thehill.com/david-keene/feinsteins-cardinal-shenanigans-2007-04-30.html
By David Keene
Posted: 04/30/07 06:24 PM [ET]
Anyone who knows much about real power in Congress knows that almost every member of the House and Senate lusts after a seat on the Appropriations Committee and hopes one day to achieve the status of Cardinal. The Cardinals, of course, are the folks who chair the various Appropriations Committee subcommittees and literally control the billions of dollars that pass through their hands.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she’s also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or “Milcon”) sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.
If the inferences finally coming out about what she did while on Milcon prove true, she may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.
The problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.
In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state’s senior senator.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while”there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts.”
And the director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”
It may be irrefutable, but she almost got away without anyone even knowing what she was up to. Her colleagues on the subcommittee, for example, had no reason even to suspect that she knew what companies might benefit from her decisions because that information is routinely withheld to avoid favoritism. What they didn’t know was that her chief legal adviser, who also happened to be a business partner of her husband’s and the vice chairman of one of the companies involved, was secretly forwarding her lists of projects and appropriation requests that were coming before the committee and in which she and her husband had an interest — information that has only come to light recently as a result of the efforts of several California investigative reporters.
This adviser insists — apparently with a straight face — that he provided the information to Feinstein’s chief of staff so that she could recuse herself in cases where there might be a conflict. He says that he assumes she did so. The public record, however, indicates that she went right ahead and fought for these same projects.
During this period the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.
Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.
In spite of the blatant appearance of corruption, no major publication has picked up on the story, the Senate Ethics Committee has reportedly let her slip by, and she is now chairing the Senate Rules Committee, which puts her in charge of making sure her colleagues act ethically and avoid the sorts of conflicts of interest with which she is personally and so obviously familiar.
Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, is a managing associate with Carmen Group, a D.C.-based governmental-affairs firm (www.carmengrouplobbying.com).
Hi Ben,
Why do you say: “So What”?
JT, I am so mad I could spit, in fact, I am spittin’ mad!
The only thing good about that is that I am not so very depressed
that I can’t see matters turning out the way the Fathers intended.
Executive privilege is not THE law that trumps all other laws
including Executive power or any other privilege or power derived therefrom by being Commander-in-Chief during ‘wartime’ – which is also debatable, if I might add.
There is no evidence that everything that has been ordered was done so legally, lawfully, and/or even under advice of Counsel, and we won’t know that unless we all take a look.
Checks and balances – three separate, but equal branches of government all of whom/which work for us -as in We, the people…
I do agree that the Dems were enablers of letting the appointed President get away with torture along with murdering thousands of Iraq citizens. However, even if Congress didn’t need to pass this bill to “outlaw” the illegal torture, the fact remains that this bill would have drawn another line in the sand that Bush would have to violate the law when he decides to torture again. And that is if you believe that they have stopped the torture. Remember, they told us for years that the U.S. doesn’t torture. That was a lie then so why do we believe them that they have now stopped? I am looking forward to the day after George leaves office to see if he will be criminally charged for his domestic and international crimes.
Patty, I’m really angry also. rafflaw you make some excellent observations. I’m very worried that this news will be buried in the election prattle. It really doesn’t take that long to assess what happens in each primary. It would be wonderful to have an actual discussion of issues, but the 24/7 chatter is giving excellent cover for Cheney/Bush to do this and god knows what else.
I have a real problem with the notion that people who want to grab a gun a fight or engage in terrorist activities should somehow be given the same rights as a uniformed combatant who plays by the rules.
The Geneva conventions are based on a series of rights and responsibilites. To qualify, there are things you have to do. It is not a carte blanche insurance card.
The simple fact of the matter is that folks like KSM DO NOT qualify for the protections provided by the Geneva Convention and as such those rights should not be extended. Period.
The primary motivation for extending the protections provided by the Conventions is to encourage a normalized form of combat, the reduction of non combatant deaths and the protection of combatants once they are out of the fight. In this regard, it provides a not so subtle form of coercsion so as to say, “If you want these protections, you have to comport yourself within these standardized rules of conduct.”
Why the Hell do some of these people want to extend the benefits to people who don’t want to play by the rules. Do you think you’re going to win them over with kindness??
It should be noted that only a small fraction of detainees were waterboarded. They tended to be well known assets of an established value.
Opponents seem to think that all interogation consists of nothing but linebacker-sized thugs beating helpless souls to a pulp.
I don’t favor torture, but there are a multitude of stress-inducing activities that have been proven to be effective and they should be employed when deemed required.
The left seems to want to hamstring the process by only allowing a very mild form of interogation that is consistant with the Army Field Manual. Why would we not want to do whatever it takes to break a guy like KSM? He was a known commodity before his capture and we fully understood the length and breadth of his value as an intelligence resource.
Some on the left clearly believe that the country has more to fear from our own government’s actions than the actions of islamic radicals. Toward that end, they have sought to limit our ability to track and monitor our enemies or to effectively question them once in our control.
And, McCain opposes water boarding but supports the president’s veto! Slimy, pandering bastard. If ANYBODY should be enraged by this issue, it ought to be him, given his past experience. I love my country but hate my government because governance is no longer their intent; grabbing power and wealth along with getting re-elected is. Disgusting beyond words.
msnbc bser, How can you state that only a few of the detainees were waterboarded? How can you believe anything this administration tells us. They have lied about spying on Americans. They have lied about torture before they admitted to it. They lied about the reasons to attack Iraq. This is the same administration that left Americans to die in New Orleans. This is the same President who ignored the warnings of the intelligence agencies prior to 9/11. And if you think torture is ok for a few bad guys, then you do favor torture. That means you are in favor of breaking U.S. law and International law. Shouldn’t you ask why the Pentagon and the FBI don’t think that torture works? The former head of the Defencse Intelligence Agency does think that you can win them over with kindness. He was quoted today that he would fire Mike McConnell for his torture stance.
So is the CIA right and the Pentagon and the FBI wrong? What helpful evidence was gained by torturing KSM? If Bush had gotten anything good, they would have leaked it to the press by now to show how smart they are.
msnbc bser,
Thank you for your well-written observations.
I think there are several points that could be made to at least open up communications with you and those who think like you.
Its not simply a matter of saying “You’re wrong!” Because, quite frankly, you are NOT obviously wrong.
Its more a matter of translating between one language and another, one world view and another.
We see that you care that our country remain safe from terrorists. That’s laudable.
Do you see that we want our country to do so but without joining the ranks of countries like North Korea, Cambodia, Egypt and others where torture is used for State purposes?
In the days of WWII we beat the Axis without recourse to torture, and in the following Cold War we faced down the Soviet Union with its gigatonne’s of nuclear warheads aimed at us without recourse to torture. So why do we need it now? The SU too had secret agents and sleeper cells no doubt.
If furthered our military supremacy that we were known as a country that treated its captives well. Witness the mass surrendors of the Germans in the 1944 and 1945 drive into the Reich. They sought to surrendor to us rather than the Soviets as it was well known the barbarities the Red Army was committing. This practice was seen again in Gulf War I, we still had the reputation of good guys and the mass surrendors saved hundreds of American lives. In short our high standards won us friends and increased the soft power we exerted around the world and made the victories of our armies less costly.
We abjured torture at home and mistreatment of those prisoners held in our jails and prisons. The Supreme Court in case after case enforced a humane standard of treatment both in custody and interrogation. This because our Constitution mandates such treatment.
We tried and convicted enemies who practiced torture on our soldiers and on the people of other countries. We signed treaties prohibiting such inhumane treatment. We tried in the post-War world to erect legal barriers against the resurgence of barbarism by any state.
Yes, the terrorists signed no treaties and feel bound by none. No matter, the treaties are to protect us against ourselves really. There are things that civilized countries just will not do. There are barbarities that we have forsworn to ever practice. And we are a mighty example to the rest of the world. Or have been.
What do we do when we practice torture? We go against ALL the standards that gave us moral standing, that fueled our claim to be the hope and light of democracy. We debase our popular temper, we set a precedent that the rest of the world can copy, to the detriment of our own soldiers, we ignore and trample on the laws that make this nation what it is: a nation of laws, not persons. We spurn treaties, we inspire those who have harbored ideas of brutality themselves, and we erode the world’s confidence in our leadership. We replace moral leadership with the evil shadow of mere military power. We will never survive long on that alone.
It is all well and good when you are young and muscular to rely on the strength of your arms and speed of your eye and to beat down all who oppose you. But age comes, and your arm weakens and your speed slackens and then what will you do when you have established by your own example that morality and law has no binding force and only raw might resolves conflict? How can you complain at that time when others serve you as you served them?
Torture is against our laws. Torture is against our morality. Torture has never been in the tradition of this country as a lawful practice. Torture is not American.
There is no reason to start now.
raflow: I doubt if the President and Vice President have lied to America as much in almost eight years as Obama and Hillary have in just the last few weeks.
raflow:
By the way, your BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME is showing again. Grow up.
Bush Derangement Syndrome? That is an educated response when the facts are staring you in the face and you can’t run and hide from them. Why not try to attack the points that were made instead of suggesting that I have this BDS. Is BDS defined as someone who cannot approve of a President of any administration lying to the public on life and dearh matters? By the way, the name is rafflaw, not rafflow.
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
msnbc bser
The URL at the top of this entry links to a timeline leading up to the Iraq war. It shows statements made by the cheney/bush administration and lists facts known at the time that contradicted these statements.
Mother Jones is a liberal magazine, but what they have laid out is facts that can be independently verified.
Deeply Worried, thanks so much for the excellent points you made in your response to MSNBC bser. We as a civilized and HUMANE nation are supposed to be much BETTER than those countries who display what I can only call a decidedly UNhealthy lust for cruelty, barbarity and death in their treatment of anyone they believe to be the “enemy,” be it of their government or their ideology.
“Thanks” to this President, who has not only vetoed this ban on torture, and those who openly supported him or just did so by their cowardice to oppose him openly, we as a nation will not be viewed as the good guys anymore. To say that is a tragedy is a gross understatement.
And we as citizens should ask the President one final question: “And who protects US from YOU, Mr. President, when you decide that anyone who disagrees with YOU has now become “the enemy? Not YOU!” Let him struggle with THAT fact on national television, for everyone to see!
thank you sincerely, Susan….
Like all great tragedies, the current predicament was founded in a welter of good intentions and ignoble opportunism and wishful visions.
We have set loose a tempest. Hard power has its limits when restrained by morality and we are learning those limits at our bitter cost.
DW, you’re very welcome. I just don’t know if the term “tempest” was strong enough for what has been let loose. I’m not including myself in the “we” equation, only because I personally did not vote for Bush, in either election. I support NONE of his actions or his pro-torture viewpoints. And as I recall, his first term was by a USSC APPOINTMENT, not by election.
The ones who have set loose the tempest are the President himself and the supporters of torture, no matter what form of it they choose to inflict on someone, be it waterboarding or something even more barbaric. And since torture is still a CRIME, despite their constant refusal to admit it, I have no problem as a “citizen juror” in the court of public opinion, finding them all GUILTY AS CHARGED!
raflow: Again I say, I doubt if the President and Vice President have lied to America as much in almost eight years as Obama and Hillary have in just the last few weeks.
Pointing me to an url of a liberal mag that has an agenda is meaningless and you know it.
Instead of browbeating Bush about supposed “lies”, why don’t you go ask your two candidate(s), Barack Hussain Obama & Hillary Rodham Clinton, why they seem to have a much more severe problem with the truth?
msnbc bser,
I am asking you to have the integrity to look at what Mother Jones is saying. Please take a look at the facts they present and see if they are verifiable. That it is not a meaningless exercise. If a conservative journal writes about a series of events that I may at first find unbelievable I should have the integrity to check out for myself if they are telling the truth. I didn’t refere you to an opinion piece. This piece gives actual events and actual statements. Opinions are interesting but facts are something anyone (left, right and center) may present and all of us should check out.
You will never hear me say that Obama and Clinton do not and have not lied. It is important to keep track of when any politician is lying, this includes Bush.
msnbc bser,
Instead of claiming someone has lied, try to give us some facts that can be verified or checked out. I gave you several instances of lies by Mr. Bush and you did nothing to refute them, except to claim that I have a bush derangement syndrome. Sounds like a Limbaugh type of argument. Give us the instances of the lies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and we will look at them. I am especially interested in any of their lies that have cost American lives and/or civilian lives. I am especially interested in any Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama lies that have taken away our freedoms or that have broken U.S. or International law. Let’s see what you can find.
You write: I am especially interested in any Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama lies that have taken away our freedoms or that have broken U.S. or International law.
Can you name the lie that Bush used to “take away freedoms or broken international law”?
Rafflaw: Your Bush Derangement Syndrome is eating you alive. Grow up or stay away from lunatic left wing web sites that fill your jellied brain with propaganda.
Msnbc bser,
Or do you prefer the new name you have listed now? I already told you one lie that Bush used. He had a speech in Buffalo and was asked if the U.S. was spying without a warrant and he said that a warrant is always requested. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html I have included a link for you from the white house web page. Of course, later on he admitted that he had spied without a warrant. So I have named one, where is your example of Hillary or Barack???? By he way, instead of attempting to slur me with your Rush Limbaugh phrase, try actually looking at the facts. What upsets you so much? The fact that I and others here have shown you that your President has lied to you, or that you actually believed him?
raf: Good lord, you can see a plot or lie where there isn’t one of you twist, turn, and torture the words long enough.
raf: you are (intentionally) confusing domestic surveillance statements by Bush with international surveillance statements by Bush. Nice TRY, no banana.
What is it like to be apecrap crazy with hate over a very good President that historically will be one of our best? Your liberals hater friends feed off hating Bush just as you do. Of course you also hate the GOP and anything that stands for decency don’t you. Bet you are pro abortion also.
msnbc,
Since you have misconstrued what was said by your so-called “very good President”, I have linked two paragraphs that go to the heart of the lie that the U.S. gets a warrant before wiretapping anyone. As you will see he is talking about domestic surveillance. Remember, the government doesn’t need a warrant to wiretap a completely international call. Here is the proof that you either missed or don’t want to admit to: “Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
But a roving wiretap means — it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he’d do? He’d get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he’d start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on — roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren’t available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn’t make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn’t use a tool that we’re using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.”
Is apecrap crazy a techinical term?
If I can interrupt this interesting discussion and interject something on the waterboarding topic.
“Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offense under the law of the United States. No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. U.S. law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a “state of public emergency”) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its obligations under the Convention throughout its territory.”
This was the United States talking. The State Department specifically in its Oct 15, 1999 report to UNCAT. These are official declarations, uncaveated, unhedged, as to our nation’s legal relation to torture. Note the prohibition on the use of emergency or exigent situations to justify torture. Note also the sentence on the independent judiciary not being by-passed.
Contrast with Mr. Bush’s veto of the anti-torture bill.
Well said Deeply Worried.
Hello Rafflaw,
Not my words, our government’s. It makes the contrast with the veto just cast all the more agonizing. We are at odds with almost everyone on this issue. The UN, the EU, the OAS, and so forth, all have outlawed torture. Everyone but the WH and the OVP have gotten the memo….
They have upped the ante in this recent veto and are seriously flirting with post-administration prosecution.
I believe their confidence in their immunity is misplaced but they may be reconciled with the idea of being legal martyrs for the sake of national security. Nationalist tides run very strong here, and no domestic court would ever impose more than a wrist slap [though I may be wrong here], and we have carefully avoided recognizing the jurisdiction of any international tribunal.
I do know the next administration, be it democrat or republican must act decisively to repudiate the previous administration’s stance on these issues.
DW
Impressive research on the part of rafflaw and D.W. Thank you. Here is something that I really think might happen. If cheney/bush can’t put in a very compliant upcoming administration we will get martial law. I think there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction. I’d be interested in hearing others’ thoughts about that.
I know that that is a recurrent speculation, and there are dark whisperings of this or that National Directive, and emergency powers, and preparations in train for quasi-government rule.
But all that aside, I for one don’t think this administration would ever even imagine such an act as declaring martial law and not allowing a successor administration take office.
I do know the next administration, be it democrat or republican must act decisively to repudiate the previous administration’s stance on these issues.
DW
********************
DW, I completely agree, and thanks for providing the precise law stating that “torture is prohibited in the United States.” The question is, whether the next administration WILL act decisively or not. Was the question even asked in the more recent Obama/Clinton debates? I have to confess; I missed the last two.
Susan,
I agree that the Democratic candidates must be asked about torture point blank. They should also be asked if they will favor an investigation of the prior administration in this area of torture. The world needs to see quick action on this subject once the new administration is in place. We need the media to start pressing McCain on why he voted against the bill to restrict the CIA to the Army technigues, when he claims he is against torture. I am not sure that martial law is a possibility, but if the wrong administration gets in, we will have even more erosion of our rights.
Susan,
There has been a shameful silence on the part of the three major candidates with respect to Mr. Bush’s weekend veto and the telecom immunity revisions ongoing in the House.
In regards to the debates, I do not believe torture and the issue of US obligations under the Geneva Conventions and domestic statutory law, were ever brought up.
Susan, what I was quoting from above was not a U.S. law but language in the Interim Report submitted by Department of State to the United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT).
Susan, what I was quoting from above was not a U.S. law but language in the Interim Report submitted by Department of State to the United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT).
*****************
Okay, thanks for the correction. It is still an excellent source, and I greatly appreciate your providing it.
DeeplyWorried:
In regards to the debates, I do not believe torture and the issue of US obligations under the Geneva Conventions and domestic statutory law, were ever brought up.
************************
Thanks, DW, I didn’t think they had been. In my view, those issues should have been raised by one of the moderators, and I’m sorry to read here that they were not. We as a people need to know if our potential leaders (who are asking for OUR votes, after all) favor torture or not, and if they support it in any way, keep them OUT of office!
My view is, if they approve it for one group, what is to stop them to approve it for additional groups, until it gets to a point where it’s approved for any person or group of persons who just happens to tick them off? It’s a very dangerous slippery slope DOWN, and I don’t want to vote for ANY candidate who even wants to get on that slope to begin with.
I think all of you make very important points about asking the candidates to come clean on their positions on torture. I don’t know if their websites address this but I’m going to check that out. This is certainly something they should all be pressed about. Good job to all!
D.W. and rafflaw, thank you for letting me know your opinions on my question.
The source of my quote, this is rather hard to find:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CAT.C.28.Add.5.En?Opendocument
bears repeating over and over:
“Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offense under the law of the United States. No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. U.S. law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a “state of public emergency”) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its obligations under the Convention throughout its territory.”
Something to recommend to one’s friends: Professor Turley, Patty C, and everyone:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.torture.html
A special issue devoted solely to the topic of torture: “Torture: Stop, No More, No Exceptions”. Please look at the spectrum of contributors…
I recommend Dean Koh’s statement. He is the originator of that quote I have used that he expressed at a symposium a few weeks ago: the point of the Convention is not to guard against the terrorists, it is to guard against ourselves. I do wish he had used the full paragraph from the 1999 report, it is so poignant now.
worth saying – well written and well said, thanks DW
” …unpatriotic ‘lawfare’ ”
Thank you so much Patty C. I respect your opinion highly, you are primus inter pares here so far as I (and probably JT also!) am concerned.
Did you note that the USA is charging China with torture today?
Mr Yu and Ms Gaer will probably have to laugh at that on UNCAT.
But it proves a point we have all been trying to make. By destroying our moral standing, we lose our authority to reprimand others and expect them to do anything more than arch an eyebrow at us.
The neo-cons really failed to appreciate the leverage of soft power. Its not that the foreign leadership of any given country is awed by our rhetoric when we do have standing. They indeed may be quite cynical. But they have to play to audiences wider than the constituencies that hold them up, so we can sometime exert some leverage from that fact.
We’ve thrown all that away.
No doubt. Not funny, though
And did you catch our esteemed leader’s jocular performance at the Gridiron Dinner Saturday Night? Also, not funny.
PattyC:
And did you catch our esteemed leader’s jocular performance at the Gridiron Dinner Saturday Night? Also, not funny.
****************
I saw that clip on COUNTDOWN this evening. Thoroughly nauseating would be an accurate, albeit impolite, way to describe to describe our “leader’s” performance. I just looked at the words, after hitting the MUTE button.
Susan/Patty C:
Come on. We finally found something he’s good at doing. Let him be. He’s got a future subbing for Howie Mandel on Deal or No Deal!
msnbcbser:
You told us previously: “Some on the left clearly believe that the country has more to fear from our own government’s actions than the actions of islamic radicals.”
Thomas Jefferson told us: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
Now let’s see who should we believe: The guy on Mt. Rushmore or you?
Well said Mespo,
To add to that cautionary quote, a re-post re-worked:
At what point do even conservatives realize we are setting up a system that can be used by Executives of ANY party to enchain us?
They think that the Executive must be given plenary powers to fight terrorism. They don’t calculate that once granted those same powers can be used to stifle dissent or opposition. They live in a sunny optimism.
James Madison in the Remonstrance and Memorial:
“Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.”
Even if one is a conservative, you must, if you have two brain cells to rub together, take alarm at such an aggregation of power in one branch of our tri-partite government. And especially in that one branch that is owned solely by one Party.
Deeply:
I think your argument fails in its premise. I see little evidence of two or more brain cells AMONG this crowd. Their ignorance about the ideals founding this Country is truly appalling.
Mespo,
Yes. I have given a lot of thought over the years as to how any person with intellectual and ethical integrity and a modicum of historical knowledge can be a conservative or a republican or a pure libertarian (a rare breed).
People with all those qualities have chosen those paths, so the question is an open one.
If you view political or philosophical positions as being akin to geographic regions or say, nations, then one can construct a rickety analogy. Just as many, many ethical people didn’t migrate from National Socialist Germany when it became evident how the country was headed, so too conservatives, viewing the position as a large region that gives them home, are not necessarily in agreement with every position held by the currently dominant leadership. They are unwilling to migrate to liberalism, even though point-by-point, liberalism may more closely match their attitudes than the current conservativism. “I am a German” trumps migration to another country. So too does “I am a Conservative”. The affiliation is early and to a group. Disaffiliation is very hard even when mounting evidence presents itself that there is no longer a good match.
This dynamic best works when group affiliation is stressed (usually as an appeal to shared opposition to an out-group, negative identification —hence the Ann Coulters, Rush L’s, M Savages-their function is to forge group unity through such means. It glosses over the actual positions of the in-group except as oppositional to hated out-groups.
Thats why, I suppose, the Republicans cannot but very rarely win debates on ideas and haven’t been able to since the New Deal. Liberal ideas beat theirs decisively in the 1930’s and they have never recovered. Their only recourse is to again and again wave the bloody shirt. First Anti-Communism in 1947, now Anti-Terrorism.
Liberals are anti CONDITIONS: anti-poverty, anti-ignorance, anti-inequality.
Conservatives are anti GROUPS: anti-liberals, anti-terrorists, anti-teachers, anti-socialists, anti environmentalists, anti illegal immigrants. Fundamentally different ways of viewing the world.
That’s why this endless so-called “war on terror” is their best bet for perpetuating their faction, unfortunately they are now in a symbiotic relationship with the terrorist factions who are relying on the same dynamic to perpetuate themselves as well!
I broke my own rule on partisan posting! My rant above is polemical and throws out generalizations with a heavy and inaccurate hand! Please feel free to trash!
Back to Law.
History informs us. What we do with that knowledge defines us, ultimately.
It certainly is possible to have two opposing thoughts at the same time and still proceed in one’s daily life – ’seemingly’ unaware.
Recently, I heard a case made for the off-chance that global warming is not responsible for severe climate change when there is a myriad of experts holding records of measured scientific data strongly suggesting otherwise. Added are countless stark, albeit ‘anecdotal’, experiences from adversely affected business owners, as well as those having been in specialized fields, for decades now.
Even more, liken this discussion to the way people believe in God based on faith, not needing any other explanation for Creation, and also knowing the science behind the theory of Evolution which has much proof and does not require God to explain it.
And then there’s the obvious separations controversy associated with the offering of ‘intelligent design theory’ in public school curriculum.
What we know about evolution is that without the ability to adapt, living things, including the Constitution, would not survive. That’s an argument against strict construction.
Scientifically speaking, and in every other way, things do not evolve backwards.
It’s a contradiction in terms.
“What we know about evolution is that without the ability to adapt, living things, including the Constitution, would not survive. That’s an argument against strict construction.”
good point.
What’s more, is that no good argument can ever be made for devolving.
It’s antithetically ‘W’ – the new catch-all for ‘Dumb’ and ‘Dumber’
Deeply,
No problem with the post. These illiterates will infuriate you if you let them. Just take comfort in the knowledge that less intelligent and most belligerent life forms usually become extinct, society usually makes progress toward rational thought (even with all the bumps and pitfalls), and that, in the end, the evil they do will almost certainly come back around to hit them square in the posterior. Actually makes life worth living just to see that day arrive.
On my theory of conservative’s tendency to demonize out-groups to build their own cohesion, I forgot one very important group they are anti-, and we know it well: they are anti-lawyers.
I hope your optimism is correct, but history teaches us some societies can remain in stasis for centuries.
America could become such a society if the conservative impulse stayed dominant…
An expansion on the distinction between liberal and conservative themes:
The liberals are anti-conditions. Take crime rates. Their analysis would tend to see crime as an off-shoot of the condition of poverty and under-education. So they would immediately try to repair the root conditions. Great Society programs, funding for schools etc.
Conservatives are anti-groups. They don’t care about the root conditions. They can attack criminals as a group and use get-tough crime legislation, increased police funding and an expansion of the prison system as their method of resolving the problem.
In our current laughable, “War On Terror”, we see the same mindset operating. We aren’t trying to address the root causes of young men and women electing to become terrorists, instead we try to kill or neutralize the group.
So Mr. Bush, will mention “Terrorists” over and over and not mention poverty, unemployment, trade imbalances, and other such arcana.
Its really like a man who lives in a house with a leaky roof and the rain is dripping via multiple leaks into the living room. If the man is a liberal he will analyze the root condition-a leaky roof-and try to fix the roof. If he is a conservative he will demonize the living room leaks and constantly be filling buckets and emptying them.
The same with terrorism. Bush simply has no clue how to procede except an endless bucket brigade of military actions and torture dungeons.
DW:
On the roof issue you forgot to mention that our conservative friend would send his prayer offering to Haggard, or Swaggart or Robertson and pray for the rain to stop. When it did he would praise Jesus for the benevolence, and if it didn’t right away, he would blame Olbermann.
mespo,
I do believe you are trying to entice msnbcbser to come out of hiding. He/she seems to have a thing about Olberman. Naturally.
Mespo, do you have any idea on WHEN the “less intelligent, most belligerent” will become extinct? They’d be a lot easier to deal with if we had some kind of inside information on a light at the end of this dark tunnel.